A court in New Delhi has ruled that maintenance awarded for a minor child cannot be parked in fixed deposits but must be used for the child's immediate needs.
Court's Observation on Maintenance Purpose
Additional Sessions Judge Bhupinder Singh stated that maintenance is intended to meet the present and recurring needs of the child. If the entire amount remains invested, it would defeat the very purpose of such an award.
Background of the Case
The observation was made while deciding cross-appeals against an interim maintenance order. The husband challenged the legal basis of the award, arguing that his wife was gainfully employed. The wife sought separate maintenance for herself, claiming her husband earned over Rs 1 lakh per month.
Trial Court Order
The dispute arose from a trial court order directing the husband to pay Rs 7,000 per month from the date of filing of the petition until January 2021, and Rs 14,000 per month with an annual increment of 5% from February 2021 until the disposal of the petition, for the maintenance of his minor daughter.
Husband's Arguments Rejected
The husband argued that the amount was not proportionate to the parties' salaries and sought to divert it to a savings account for the child's future use. The court rejected this plea. The judge also dismissed the contention that the maintenance amount was disproportionate and that the wife's salary of over Rs 60,000 was not properly considered. The court noted that the custodial parent already contributes through continuous care and supervision, so a larger financial contribution from the non-custodial parent, especially when his income is substantially higher, cannot be regarded as unreasonable.
Child's Requirements Beyond Education
Emphasizing that a growing child's requirements extend beyond basic educational expenses, including food, clothing, healthcare, transportation, and other incidental expenses, the court upheld the trial court's order.
Visitation Disputes Not Relevant
The court also dismissed the husband's argument that the wife had deprived him of access to the child and thus could not be trusted with handling the maintenance amount. The court noted that the right of a child to receive maintenance cannot be made dependent upon the outcome of custody or visitation disputes between the parents, as it is a matter of independent action.
Wife's Plea for Personal Maintenance Denied
However, the court declined the wife's plea for personal maintenance, observing that when a spouse is educated, gainfully employed, and earning a substantial and regular income, the grant of interim maintenance is not an automatic consequence merely because the other spouse earns more.
